Singapore now world's most expensive city

(07-03-2014, 10:37 AM)flinger Wrote: This is a great summation.

"Nobody has the answers now but it is a problem we need to resolve urgently. If not, because the shares of local REITs are listed and easily tradeable, all of the benefits — especially if REIT managers have been very successful in raising value for unitholders — could eventually land in foreign hands.

Then we will become renters in our own country and have the life sucked out of us."

I am not worried about this because a lot of these reits belong to Temasek directly or indirectly... Capland, mapletree, keppelcrop.

(07-03-2014, 11:20 AM)WolfT Wrote:

(07-03-2014, 10:37 AM)flinger Wrote: This is a great summation.

"Nobody has the answers now but it is a problem we need to resolve urgently. If not, because the shares of local REITs are listed and easily tradeable, all of the benefits — especially if REIT managers have been very successful in raising value for unitholders — could eventually land in foreign hands.

Then we will become renters in our own country and have the life sucked out of us."

I am not worried about this because a lot of these reits belong to Temasek directly or indirectly... Capland, mapletree, keppelcrop.

Ah Ha!
Like SMRT, who is actually the largest shareholder? And who is actually "Too-Much-Sick?
So who control the rental of properties in Singapore?
Put your hand and touch your nose, rub it and then you should come to the same answer. Of course our G. i am not that stupid as you like to think. Though you are all scholars.

(07-03-2014, 11:20 AM)WolfT Wrote:

(07-03-2014, 10:37 AM)flinger Wrote: This is a great summation.

"Nobody has the answers now but it is a problem we need to resolve urgently. If not, because the shares of local REITs are listed and easily tradeable, all of the benefits — especially if REIT managers have been very successful in raising value for unitholders — could eventually land in foreign hands.

Then we will become renters in our own country and have the life sucked out of us."

I am not worried about this because a lot of these reits belong to Temasek directly or indirectly... Capland, mapletree, keppelcrop.

One can praise that these companies are making good return for their big shareholders. But somehow the return to the "ultimate shareholders" (further up the hierarchy) is 2.5%. Too little for compulsory locking in the funds for 30~50yrs.

(07-03-2014, 01:41 PM)Freenasi Wrote: One can praise that these companies are making good return for their big shareholders. But somehow the return to the "ultimate shareholders" (further up the hierarchy) is 2.5%. Too little for compulsory locking in the funds for 30~50yrs.

FYI, a statement from Temasek official web site below. I recalled similar info was highlighted by buddies here. So your statement is incorrect.

"Temasek does not manage any CPF savings - these are managed by the Board of the Central Provident Fund, the Government surpluses, nor does it manage Singapore’s Official Foreign Reserves, which are managed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore."

http://www.temasek.com.sg/abouttemasek/faqs

(07-03-2014, 03:10 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(07-03-2014, 01:41 PM)Freenasi Wrote: One can praise that these companies are making good return for their big shareholders. But somehow the return to the "ultimate shareholders" (further up the hierarchy) is 2.5%. Too little for compulsory locking in the funds for 30~50yrs.

FYI, a statement from Temasek official web site below. I recalled similar info was highlighted by buddies here. So your statement is incorrect.

"Temasek does not manage any CPF savings - these are managed by the Board of the Central Provident Fund, the Government surpluses, nor does it manage Singapore’s Official Foreign Reserves, which are managed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore."

http://www.temasek.com.sg/abouttemasek/faqs

Definitely of course! If not how to justify to the people?
Can EPF of Malaysia justify to the people if their G. does something like that? Don't forget 2.5% CPF is guaranteed. Actually by whom or by what leh? Anybody like to take over the CPF and guaranteed a 2.5% ROC?

(07-03-2014, 10:39 AM)specuvestor Wrote:

(06-03-2014, 09:57 PM)tanjm Wrote: Business costs are self-correcting provided there is a free and transparent market for resources.

If costs become so expensive as to deter the marginal businesses, they'll leave and there'll be less demand for property and labor and costs go down. Land and other costs are so high now because Singapore is basically still booming and skilled labor is in short supply. Economics 101.

Since I am always skeptical of 101, here's my 2 cents

The demand and supply has to be flexible ie supply can be unlimited to lower prices. Obviously with lag time and limited land resource that is not true. Even in big countries, the city itself has "limited" land. Otherwise there shouldn't be pricing difference between say financial centre and suburbs. Location, location, location is limited.

Demand can also be artificially high due to hot money. In an open international economy local entrepenuers will be squeezed by foreign MNCs simply because the base is different hence not level playing field. There is certain logic to protectionism UP TO A POINT. If pure capitalism, then karaokes and MNCs would be dominating all the outlets. Take a pinch of salt listening to academics, adjusted with your real life observation.

Policy making is more than 101 theory. It is multi-faceted and have to consider a whole range of socio-economical, not to mention political and psychological, implications OVER THE LONG RUN. You don't just build a warehouse and tear it down overnight to make way for more profitable residential.

The main issue with Singapore is asset inflation due to the obsession with GDP growth by importing wealth and people. Our focus should be changing to productivity growth on a sustainable basis. Growth by perspiration is passe; it should have been growth by inspiration

I think you got it the wrong way. I'm not saying costs won't rise, I'm saying that costs will adjust to the economic situation. Economics is about allocation of capital/resources.

Of course productivity is a constraint, but you don't change things over a few years, its more like a generation. In the mean time, when you are passing time at your work day after day, it doesn't look like things are improving. But compare with 10-15 years ago, you don't find as plentiful jobs in bioengineering, pharmaceuticals, finance, game designers, animation artists, and so on.

Costs are but one factor, what kind of economic activity it supports is another.

Generally agree. I had the impression that u are saying cost will come down when economy is not booming. Labour is sticky upwards... It's not going to come off easy...that's why govt adjust it with employer CPF contribution %

Prices adjust not just to real demand and supply which I thought is what u are implying in econs 101. There are structural and perception factors as well. Like u said, if we are moving to higher value add industry, it is INEVITABLE that cost will increase. Question is whether income for the masses increase more.

Econs is not just about efficient allocation of capital. It is also about effective allocation. That's where some can't make the distinction but simplistically equate the 2. Obviously some realize the hard way that offering to highest bidder may not always be the most effective system

I still think my chicken rice at hawker centre quite cheap, but many things are more and more expensive.